Mass loss and supernova progenitors

Mass loss and supernova progenitors

John Eldridge

Astrophysics Research Centre, Physics Building, Queen 's University, Belfast, BT7 INN, UK.

Abstract. We first discuss the mass range of type IIP SN progenitors and how the upper and lower
limits impose interesting constraints on stellar evolution. Then we discuss the possible implications
of two SNe, 2002ap and 2006jc, for Wolf-Rayet star mass-loss rates and long Gamma-ray bursts.

Keywords: stars: evolution, supernovae: general, supernovae: 2002ap, 2006jc.
PACS: 97.10.Cv,97.10.Me,97.60.Bw

INTRODUCTION

Core-collapse supernovae (SNe) are the violent deaths of stars more massive than
« 7.5M . They occur when nuclear burning reactions or electron degeneracy-pressure
can no longer support the core against gravitational collapse. Either a neutron star or
black hole is formed from the collapsing iron core and the outer layers of the star ex-
plode in a violent display. The nature of this display depends strongly on the final state
of the progenitor star and the circumstellar medium; because there are many paths of
stellar evolution the are many types of SNe.

SNe are classified according to their observed spectra and lightcurves. The first dif-
ferentiation is made by the absence or presence of hydrogen in a spectrum. If hydrogen
emission lines exist then a SN is type II and type I otherwise. For type II SNe there are
four subgroups: IIP when there is a plateau to the lightcurve lasting a few months. These
are the most common type of SN. Type IIL have a linear decay to their lightcurve, Iln
have narrow hydrogen emission lines in their spectrum and lib initially appear to be type
II until after a short time the hydrogen lines disappear and the SN becomes type lb.

The hydrogen free type I SNe have three separate subtypes. Type la are thought to be
thermonuclear explosions of Chandrasekhar mass white dwarfs and are not considered
further here, type lb have helium lines in emission while type Ic have no helium lines.
Single star mod els predicts t hat th e type II SNe wil l be the result of stars between

about 7 to 27M dHeger et all 120031 : lEldridge & foul 120041 : IPoelarends etail 120071)

as these retain their hydrogen envelopes. Stars more massive than this lose all their
hydrogen via stellar winds and therefore give rise to type Ib/c SNe. The only way to
confirm this mapping is to observe the progenitors of SN. This is achieved by searching
telescope archives to discover pre-explosion images.

While the progenitors of SNe 1987 A and 1993 J where detected both were in nearby
galaxies and both rare and unusual SNe. It was not until 1999 when the HST archive
covered enough galaxies at sufficient depth and resolution that it was possible to start
looking for progenitors of SN in a large number of galaxies at distances up to 20
megaparsecs. The fi rst detection for the most common, type IIP, SN was for 2003gd
(jSmartt et all l2004h . This confirmed that their progenitors were red supergiants. With

eight years of observations there are currently 32 SNe with useful pre-explosion images,
18 of these are type IIP (6 detections) and the remainder being types lib and Ib/c. There
are no detections of type Ib/c progenitors and with the growing number of the non-
detections there is growing evidence that our standard view of mass loss during the late
stages of evolution may be incorrect.

In this proceedings we briefly highlight some of the main conclusions the mass range
inferred for type IIP progenitors. We then discuss two interesting cases of two type Ib/c
SNe, 2002ap and 2006jc that provide very stringent limits on the evolution of the most
massive stars.

THE POPULATION OF TYPE HPS.

With the sample of 18 type IIP detections an d non-detections it i s possible to begin to

characterise the population of the progenitors iSmartt et al.1 (]2007). The main important
result for their study is that by using a maximum likelihood analysis it is possible to infer
the minimum and maximum initial masses for type IIP SN progenitors. The initial mass
range is between 7.5 to 16.5M , however the error bars are large and the range could be
as large as 6 to 18M Q . The initial mass depends strongly on the mixing and mass-loss
scheme of the stellar models use to estimate an initial mass from a final luminosity. To
remove this systematic it is better to work out the range of final he lium core masses

which is approximately 1.9 to 6Mq in the STARS stellar models (El dridge & Tout .

2004)

The minimum mass can be used to constrain models of convection in stellar models.
Most models with helium cores at the lower end of this range experience second dredge-
up and become AGB stars. In fact the stellar models used in this work do experience
second dredge-up and we use the pre-dredge up models. Therefore something is required
to prevent these stars from becoming AGB stars. It is possible for the most massive
AGB stars to undergo SN, however their observational signature in pre-explosion images
would be quite different to the red supergiants ob served to date as they are cooler and

therefore more luminous at infra-red wavelengths (jEldridge et all 120071) .

The maximum mass is due to one of two factors, because stars above this limit have
lost most (or all) of their hydrogen and produce another type of SN or it is because
the cores are massive enough to form a black hole and this also leads to another type
of SN. In reality it is probably a combination of these factors. However the black hole
explanation could be favoured as the inferred helium core mass is similar to that which is

expected to produce a black h ole rather than a neutron star at core-collapse (|Heger et al. .
120031 : lEldridge & Toutil2004l) .

BUT WHAT ABOUT OTHER TYPES?

With only one detection for the other SN types there is little that can be said. If the
upper limits that have been obtained on the progenitors' luminosity are compared to
the luminosity of observed Wolf-Rayet stars, the suspected progenitors, it is apparent
that the pre-explosion in all but one cases are not deep enough to have revealed the

progenitors. For a detection it is a waiting game to determine for type type Ib/c SN to
occur nearby and have deep pre-explosion images.

The culprits for type Ib/c progenitors are Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars. These are evolved
massive stars that have completed core hydrogen burning and lost (or in the process of
losing) their hydrogen envelopes and are naked helium stars. These stars are also the
preferred progenitors of long Gamma-ray bursts ( Woosley & BloomLl2006h .

Despite this there are two interesting pre-explosion images for type Ib/c SNe. SN
2002ap, because the limit is so low that we were only just unable to detect the progenitor
and are able to rule out single stars for the progenitor. While before SN 2006jc a
luminous outburst transient was detected two years prior to the SN and this may have
interesting consequences for our understanding of stellar-wind mass-loss.

2002ap

Crockett et al. (2007) used previously unused deep pre-explosion images to reexamine

the progenitor of SN 2002ap. The limit is the most stringent to date on any type Ib/c
progenitor. They were able to rule out all standard single-star models are suggest that
the most likely progenitor was a binary.

Figure \T\ shows the luminosity limit derived from the pre-explosion images on a
theoretical Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. The grey stellar track is of a 17M Q star that
has its hydrogen envelope stripped by interaction via Roche-Lobe Overflow in a binary.
The final stellar model has a final mass or 5Mn th at agrees with the mass inferred

from modelling the SN lightcurve by Ma zzalil ((2002). Also shown on the figure are the

tracks of possible companion stars the mass of any companion star can also be limited
by the pre- and post- explosion images. The mass of the companion star must have
been less than « 14M Q . Any mass transfer must have been quite inefficient otherwise
the secondary would have accreted a large amount of mass and be visible in the pre-
explosion image.

However there is a problem with this model, there is a large amount of helium in the
progenitor model. While the amount of helium required for a type lb SN is uncertain,
over 0.5M Q should produce the signature of helium lines in the SN spectrum. The binary
model has around 1M of helium in the envelope. Therefore there is some uncertainty
in whether this is a reasonable progenitor model.

There are solutions, one is that the star was more massive and underwent more severe
stripping during the binary interaction. Another is that we underestimate the strength of
stellar winds of Wolf-Rayet stars. Increase the mass-loss rates of a star by a factor of 2 -
3 would reduce the final mass of helium and therefore produce the required type Ic SN.
A source of increased mass-loss rates could be rapid rotation [REF].

An alternative is that the mass-loss rates of WR stars are underestimated. This would
be possible if the mass-loss rates are enha nced for only a shor t time of evolution. A pos-
sible mechanism has been suggested by Petrovic et al.1 ( 20061) who discuss how helium

star envelopes can become inflated. Inflated helium envelopes are caused by a bump in
the opacity which causes the envelopes to become extended and th e density profil e of the
envelope to invert so density increases with radius from the core. IPetrovic et al.l d2006|)

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5

Effective Temperature log(T/K)

FIGURE 1. Theoretical Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. The dashed line is the luminosity limit from the
non-detection of any object in the pre-e xplosion image, the grey box represents the uncertainty in the
limit for WR stars dCrockett et all l2007j) . The solid grey line is the evolution for a 17M© star which has
its hydrogen envelope removed in a binary interaction. The solid black line is the evolution of a 1 1 .9M
binary companion and the dotted line is the evolution of a 15.3M binary companion. At the time of
the primary SN the latter companion would have been observed while the former would have remained
undetected.

suggest that this inflation may not be physical and note that by increasing the mass-loss
rates it is possible to remove the inflated envelope and density inversion

Figu re [2] shows a standard stellar model with the mass-loss rates of Nugis & Lamers

(2000) and a model which replaces these with the mass loss rates of lPetrovic et al.l {2006)
when the helium envelope becomes inverted. The figure shows that during the nitrogen
rich WN evolution much more mass is lost than in the standard case. Further more most
of the lost material is heli um. The final m odel retains only O.25M and the mass again
agrees with the analysis of iMazzalil d2002h .

With one non-detection it is not possible to decide if all WR mass-loss rates need to
be increased but if the number of non-detections increase then the situation may begin
to become more serious and the mass-loss rates will have to be closely examined. The
only other scenario is that WR stars produce large amounts of dust a few years before
core-collapse. This would reduce their apparent luminosity in pre-explosion images.

2006jc

Pastorellol d2007h and lFoley etail d2007h describe a most unusual SN. SN 2006jc was

discovered on 9th October 2006 in the galaxy, UGC4904. IPastorellol d2007h found that
it was spatially coincident with a bright optical transient that occurred in 2004. The SN
itself was classified as a type Ib-n due to narrow helium lines in the spectra. The current
interpretation is that the narrow helium lines are due to helium-rich material ejected by
the star in a dramatic mass-loss episode that was observed as the optical transient. Then

6.0

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5

Effective Temperature log(T/K)

FIGURE 2. Theoretical Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of the evolution of initially 50Mq stars. The
dashed line is the luminosity limit from the non-detection of a WR star the pre-expl osion image, the
grey b ox represents the uncertainty. The solid grey line is for a st andard WR model feldridge & Vinkl
2006) and the solid black line a model using the mass-loss rates of (Pet rovic et aUl2006h .

two years after this episode the star exploded as a type Ic SN and therefore the progenitor
star had be stripped of helium, otherwise broad helium emission lines would have been
observed in combination with the narrow lines.

The problem with this interpretation is that if the progenitor was a single star
then our understanding of Wolf-Rayet stars and their winds must be revised. The
only single stars known to produce similar bright optical transients are LBV stars
(|Humphreys & Davidsonl 1 19941 : Ivan Genderenl . l200lf) . However these stars tend to retain
some hydrogen which would have been observed in the SN spectrum. It is conceivable
that there are transition objects between LBVs and WR stars that would lead to the ob-
served evolution for the progenitor of SN2006jc. These objects may be rare to get the
right amount of mass-loss to remove all helium just before core-collapse. Although such
objects would be more common at lower metallicities.

An alternative to the LBV-like WR star is that the transient and mass-loss was due to
a pair-production instabil ity causing a d ramatic mass-los s episode a few years be fore a
normal core-collapse SN (|Langeru2007r) . The models of iHeger & Woosleyl (|2002h show
that massive stars with little mass loss will experience such outbursts prior to core-
collapse. The upper metallicity limit is uncertain. It is possible to estimate from stellar
models to be below SMC metallicity.

There is final a possibility with an observed analogue, the may have been progenitor
a binary with a WR star and an evolved LBV star. The outburst was produced by the
LBV star while the WR star exploded to produce the type Ic SN. There is one similar
system in the SMC that has been ob serve to undergo outburst a nd at some point in

the future may lead to a similar SN ( Koenigsberger et all . |2002|) . These systems are

not as rare as might be first thought. If we assume LBV evolution happens after core-
hydrogen burning is complete then any star which has a secondary companion that has
completed core-hydrogen burning could be a possible LBV-WR system. Figure [3] shows

20 30 40 50 60 80 100 150 200

Initial Mass / M„

FIGURE 3. The lifetimes for massive single stars. The solid line is the total lifetime versus initial mass.
The dashed line is the time of the end of core hydrogen burning and the dotted-dashed line is the time of
the end of core helium burning. The three shaded regions show the range of secondary masses which have
completed core hydrogen burning and are LBV candidates by the time the primary (the high mass edge of
the region) experiences a SN.

how the hydrogen burning lifetime compares to the total lifetime for stars with different
initial masses. It is possible to see that the more massive stars can have a wider range
of secondary masses for this kind of evolution. If we assume the mass ratio of binaries
(q = M secon dary /-^primary) has a flat distribution and is independent of primary mass then
60% of binaries with a 200M Q primary might be LBV-WR systems, while this reduces
to only 20% for a primary initially 50M Q .

The only way to distinguish between these three plausible models will be the rate
of these events and the metallicities of the host galaxies. The binary scenario will be
only weakly metallicity dependent, the pair-production outburst will be concentrated to
low metallicities while the single star LBV/WR has an unknown metallicity dependence
but if it is related to inflation of the WR star then is will be concentrated at higher
metallicities.

The total rate of type Ib-n SN is < 4% of all type Ib/c SN. The rate of GRBs as
a fraction of all Ib/c SNe is between 0.1 to 1% [REF]. It is possible therefore that
some GRBs may occur with 2006jc-like SNe. If this is the case then the circumburst
medium inferred from the optical afterglow would be a constant density medium due to
the changes in mass-loss rate and wind speed. There are a number of GRBs where this
has been observed and is another possible solution wh en the CBM is a constant density
rather than that expected of a free- wind density profile (|van Marie et all 120061 : lEldridge .

2007).

CONCLUSIONS

While the progenitors of type IIP SNe are becoming well understood there is still great
uncertainty over the progenitors of other SN types. It is becoming apparent that our
understanding of WR mass-loss maybe incorrect and one possible reason that we do not
observe more WR stars is they lose more mass than currently thought and that some of
this mass-loss may be in luminous outburst such as the one that proceeded SN 2006jc.
Or they produce copious amount of dust in the last few years before core-collapse.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

JJE would like to thank Stephen Smartt, Andrea Pastorello, Seppo Matilla, Mark Crock-
ett and Dave Young for many discussions and making his time at Queen's University
Belfast so enjoyable.

REFERENCES

Crockett R. M., Smartt S. J., Eldridge J. J., Manila S., Young D. R., Pastorello A., Maund J. R., Benn

C. R., Skillen I., 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 706
Eldridge J. J., 2007, MNRAS, 377, L29

Eldridge J. J., Manila S., Smartt S. J., 2007, MNRAS, 376, L52
Eldridge J. J., Tout C. A., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 87
Eldridge J. J., Vink J. S., 2006, A&A, 452, 295

Foley R. J., Smith N., Ganeshalingam M., Li W., Chornock R., Filippenko A. V., 2007, ApJL, 657, L105

Heger A., Fryer C. L., Woosley S. E., Langer N., Hartmann D. H., 2003, ApJ, 591, 288

Heger A., Woosley S. E., 2002, ApJ, 567, 532

Humphreys R. M., Davidson K., 1994, PASP, 106, 1025

KoenigsbergerG., Kurucz R. L., Georgiev L., 2002, ApJ, 581, 598

Langer N. e. a., 2007, in prep.

Mazzali P. A. e. a., 2002, ApJL, 572, L61

Nugis T., Lamers H. J. G. L. M., 2000, A&A, 360, 227

Pastorello A. e. a., 2007, Nature, 447, 829

Petrovic J., Pols O., Langer N., 2006, A&A, 450, 219

Poelarends A. J. T., Herwig F, Langer N., Heger A., 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 705
Smartt S. J., Eldridge J. J., Crockett R. M., Maund J. R., 2007, in prep.

Smartt S. J., Maund J. R., Hendry M. A., Tout C. A., Gilmore G. F, Manila S., Benn C. R., 2004, Science,
303, 499

van Genderen A. M., 2001, A&A, 366, 508

van Marie A. J., Langer N., Achterberg A., Garcafa-Segura G, 2006, A&A, 460, 105
Woosley S. E., Bloom J. S., 2006, ARAA, 44, 507